Watch: Judge Napolitano Reveals One Thing EVERY Candidate Should Learn From Trump

Fox News contributor Andrew Napolitano recently discussed Donald Trump’s headline-grabbing presidential campaign with the panelists on Outnumbered.

Acknowledging he knows Trump “professionally and personally,” Napolitano shared why he is happy the brash billionaire has made a mark in the GOP primary.

“I disagree with him on many issues,” he admitted, “but I am thrilled he’s in the race. I love the way he’s stirring the pot. I love the way he challenges the establishment, I love the way he says what he thinks.”

Responding to a concurrent discussion of primary candidate Marco Rubio, Napolitano shared his analysis. Some on the panel previously noted Rubio was an early favorite who has since failed to attract the level of support some predicted.

“If Marco Rubio had said exactly what he thought, as [panelist] Andrea [Tantaros] suggested,” he said, “he’d be higher in the polls.”

Napolitano insisted that the rest of the Republican field can “take a lesson from the Donald.”

Though others on the panel held an objectively different view of the candidate, participants in the discussion generally agreed that a significant percentage of Republican voters are looking for a candidate willing to take the fight to the party’s establishment wing.

While Trump’s unfavorable rating remains high, in large part due to his divisive rhetoric, he also continues to enjoy a comfortable polling lead for much the same reason.

Is Trump’s candidacy a boon or a distraction for the Republican party? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch: Justice Scalia Shreds The Supreme Court’s Marriage Ruling

On America’s Newsroom Friday, Fox News’ senior judicial analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano, offered a pointed analysis of Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent on the same-sex marriage Supreme Court ruling.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Obergefell v. Hodges Friday to legalize same-sex marriage in all 50 states. “The court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion for the court.

Napolitano told Fox News correspondent Leland Vittert shortly after the ruling that “Five unelected black robed judges have taken over the government, have rewritten an institution that’s 4,000 years old, an institution that relies on popular consensus and ancient tradition and there is no authority whatsoever in the Constitution for them to do so.”

The former Bergen County, N.J., superior court judge read some of Scalia’s dissent on air:

Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. The Judiciary is the “least dangerous” of the federal branches because it has “neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm” and the States, “even for the efficacy of its judgments.” With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.

The veteran justice argued the majority’s decision relates to the court’s disconnection with the rest of the country. Scalia noted that out of the nine justices sitting on the Supreme Court, eight studied at Harvard or Yale Law School, and four of the nine are New York City natives (Scalia, born in Trenton, N.J., grew up in Queens and went to high school in Manhattan). “Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between,” Scalia wrote. “Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count).”

Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a
constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.

Scalia, who himself is Catholic and has nine children, including one son who is a priest, called the majority opinion “egotistic.”

“It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so,” Scalia wrote. “Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent.”

“The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.” (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.)

What do you think of Justice Scalia’s dissent? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch: Stunned Judge Napolitano Reveals How Supreme Court Just Pulled The Wool Over America’s Eyes

Judge Andrew Napolitano believes Chief Justice John Roberts, in his majority opinion in King v. Burwell engaged in “bizarre and odd contortions” to reach its decision.

“My immediate reaction is that the chief justice has yet again resorted to a nearly unheard of construction in order to save the statute,” Fox News’ senior judicial analyst told Bill Hemmer.

He noted that Roberts has now saved the law twice, first ruling in favor of its constitutionality and now in re-interpreting the plain language of the statute. “Last time around when the government said it was not a tax and the challengers said it was not a tax, the chief justice ruled it was a tax and that saved it,” the judge said.

“This time around he took the plain meaning of ordinary words, ‘established by the states,’ and somehow held that they were ambiguous, and that he could — and that that the majority could — correct the ambiguity according to what they thought the drafters meant.”

“The court is now in the business of saving a statute in order to save its reputation,” Napolitano said, sharing the view Justice Antonin Scalia put forward in his dissent.

Napolitano found Scalia’s dissent–joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas–to be “as compelling and stinging as any dissent as I have seen.”

Scalia writes of the majority’s opinion: “Today’s interpretation is not merely unnatural; it is unheard of.”

“The Court forgets that ours is a government of laws and not of men. That means we are governed by the terms of our laws, not by the unenacted will of our lawmakers,” he posits.

Roberts, who was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Stephen Breyer, ruled in favor of the subsidies being available to those who purchase insurance through the federal health exchange. In his opinion, the chief justice relied heavily on the overall intent of the law and the negative impact ruling against the subsidies would have.

Scalia, in turn, relied on the plain meaning of the words “established by the State” regarding Congress’ apparent plan to get the states to participate in the Affordable Care Act.

Roberts concludes: “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter. Those credits are necessary for the Federal Exchanges to function like their State Exchange counterparts, and to avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid.”

Scalia instead finds the majority engaged in “somersaults of statutory interpretation” to save the law. “Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.”

“We should start calling this law SCOTUScare,” he adds.

“Rather than rewriting the law under the pretense of interpreting it, the Court should have left it to Congress to decide what to do about the Act’s limitation of tax credits to state Exchanges,” Scalia argues.

Going forward, the originalist jurist believes these cases “will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”

h/t: The Blaze

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Infuriated Supreme Court Justice Reveals Perfect New 1-Word Name For Obamacare

Justice Antonin Scalia, author of the dissent in Thursday’s 6-3 King v. Burwell decision, did not hold back taking Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion to task for failing to follow the plain language of the law and the Constitution.

Scalia noted: “You would think the answer would be obvious — so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it.”

As reported by Western Journalism, President Barack Obama made a very similar statement a few weeks ago–from the entirely opposite perspective, however. Some felt the president was trying to pressure the court to decide his way when he said that the court’s decision is “not something that should be done based on a twisted interpretation of four words, and so I am optimistic that the Supreme Court will play it straight, when it comes to the interpretation. This should be an easy case. Frankly, it probably shouldn’t even have been taken up.”

Justice Scalia believes the majority in fact did twist the meaning of the four words in question–“established by the State”–to get its desired outcome of upholding the payment of subsidies through the federal healthcare exchange.

“Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State,’” Scalia writes.

He continues: “Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.”

Scalia offers that: “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare,” given the extraordinary measures taken by the high court on the law’s behalf.

[T]his Court’s two decisions on the Act–[upholding the constitutionality of the law and the payment of subsidies through the federal exchange]–will surely be remembered through the years … And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and it prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano stood firmly by Scalia’s scathing analysis.

Appearing on Outnumbered, he took note that Justice Roberts, in both major Obamacare cases, “used novel arguments that were not even advanced in the briefs or the oral arguments before the court.”

In 2012’s Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, neither the government nor the plaintiffs argued the penalties created by the law were a tax; but Roberts wrote in his opinion that it was a tax–therefore, a power that Congress has under the Constitution.

In King v. Burwell, neither side argued that the language in the statute was “ambiguous”; but Roberts wrote that it was, finding it a case of “inartful drafting.”

Justice Scalia posits that even if Roberts is correct that Congress made a mistake, “This Court, however, has no free-floating power ‘to rescue Congress from its drafting errors.’”

He believes that “The Court’s decision reflects the philosophy that judges should endure whatever interpretive distortions it takes in order to correct a supposed flaw in the statutory machinery. That philosophy ignores the American people’s decision to give Congress ‘[a]ll legislative Powers’ enumerated in the Constitution. They made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both making laws and mending them.”

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas joined Scalia in his dissent.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch: Judge Napolitano Wakes Obama Up With Harsh News He Didn’t Want To Hear

Judge Andrew Napolitano chastised President Barack Obama for his “lack of a sense of decency” for trying to pressure Supreme Court justices to decide the impending Obamacare decision in his favor.

As reported by Western Journalism, the Supreme Court’s decision in King v. Burwell, addressing whether the Affordable Care Act authorizes the federal government to pay subsidies to those Americans purchasing healthcare through the federal exchange (healthcare.gov), is coming soon.

The plain language of the law says subsidies can be made for those who purchase healthcare insurance in an “exchange established by the state.”

Thirty-four states do not have state exchanges, so residents in those states who wish to purchase health insurance and obtain subsidies have used the federal exchange.

Regarding the upcoming decision, the president said: “I think it’s important for us to assume that the Supreme Court is going to do what most legal scholars who have looked at this would expect them to do.”

The courts decision is “not something that should be done based on a twisted interpretation of four words, and so I am optimistic that the Supreme Court will play it straight, when it comes to the interpretation,” he added. “This should be an easy case. Frankly, it probably shouldn’t even have been taken up.”

“I watch him as he said this, and I was astounded by his lack of sense of decency and comity,” Napolitano told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly. The justices “couldn’t care less what he says. He’s wrong that legal scholars are on his side. Legal scholars are on both sides and the Supreme Court does not count noses among legal scholars.”

“He can’t intimidate them. He can’t change their minds. He had his facts wrong. It’s totally inappropriate for the president to do that,” he added.

Kelly asked the judge: “You know the legal scholar who agrees with the challengers in the case? Jonathan Gruber, the MIT adviser to the White House, is on the record saying, ‘This law is going to fail because they did not write it the right way.’”

The Fox News host then noted that the president likes “to bully the Supreme Court. Remember the State of the Union?” referring to Obama calling out the Supreme Court regarding its decision in the Citizens United case. Obama’s accusation during the address, implying the justices failed to follow the Constitution, prompted Justice Alito to mouth the words, “Not true” in response.

Some have speculated the reason the White House has indicated it has no “plan B” if the Supreme Court rules against use of the federal exchange is to pressure the justices to rule in its favor. Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly switched his vote at the last minute in ruling on the constitutionality of Obamacare in 2012 after the administration employed similar pressure tactics.

The judge told Kelly that the president’s answer regarding his views about the impending decision should have been: “The case is before the court; and however the court rules, I will abide by that ruling.”

“And we will respect the rule of law,” Kelly chimed in.

“It tells me that he thinks he’s going to lose, and he’s trying to downplay the significant of that loss and disrespect the court,” said Napolitano
He then turned to the camera. “Guess what Mr. President, the Supreme Court and not the president has the final word on the meaning of the law and its consistency with the Constition. That’s been the law of the land for 230 years.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth